Philosophy Discussion Forums

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.

...large numbers? Fear! Fear of the unknown. Fear of negative judgments/punishments. I find this surprising becuase this is suppose to be contrary to what scripture teaches in passages such as Jer 31:3, "The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." Also the words of Christ in Matt 11:28, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Love & knowing that there is a place for you in the universe is endearing but it does not put butts in pews (pun was intended) or fill the coffers; fear however does both of these things very well!

But I suggest one's approach to reality is not either religious or metaphysical, the two ways of thinking are not exclusive of one another

I agree . Good point.

I don't have his actual post in front of me as I type this but I think that NeoTheseus answers ChasW's question by saying that fear is what drives people to congregate in believing groups. I agree . However I want to add that typical people form relationships as their main agendas. Those relationships might be ephemeral, or they might be a main part of the typical person's identity. The latter is what religious affiliation tends to be whether the religious devotee is born into the subculture or adopts it later in life. This is why symbolic hatred of the affiliation is so reviled by devotees. I mean symbols such as the American flag, or the Prophet Muhammad may not be defiled but if they are defiled, the typical devotee becomes affrighted that her very identity is threatened.

In actual fact, the American flag is a coloured cloth, and the picture of Muhammad is paper , but symbols are very important to typical people, more so than facts. Religions are affiliations that are long lasting and therefore sources of power for the devotees, and may not be symbolically defiled without the backlash.Philosophy aided by the sciences, especially anthropology, can see through the subjective behaviours.

I really don't understand why some people believe that religion, namely Christianity, is for "ignorant" people. Why people tend to look back on the dark ages and all the bad things that happened during that time as their main point towards badmouthing Christianity is silly to me......LOTS of bad things happened during that period of time, and Christianity wasn't to blame for all of them. And, although Christianity went through a "dark" period ( the inquisition, etc.), funny how no Christians ever drove planes into the side of buildings. And while some people believe that Christianity is for the ignorant, they never seem to get around to mentioning all the GOOD that has been accomplished in this world, and I can assure you that the good (charitable acts,etc.) FAR outweighs the bad. Makes you wonder who the "ignorant" ones REALLY are!

DanteAzrael wrote:There isn't really a difference at all. Religion is a primative form of philosophy. The main difference is that religion is based on mysticism. If Philosophy is done correctly, it is based on reason, rational, logical thought processes based on actual reality. Not on whim.

So philosophers like Plotinus weren't really philosophers, but primitive and whimsical "mystics"?

I would say it would really depend on how it's used, and who is using them. Say for example, a religious fanatic of this time and era, who has a closed mind, no critical thinking or original thought, how can they possibly fathom to philosophize about deep correlations, truths, and proofs? Critical thinking and original thought are a must for philosophy, unless you're just planning on going off books/other sources for all of your arguments, which means they aren't truly your arguments.

Philosophers make the books, not books make the philosophers.

So that kind of rules "religion" right out of the picture, since religions most all derive from 'books' as sources. New age religions are simple ploys to gain credibility and 'money'. Hence Scientology. Not trying to **** on belief, but... why believe in belief, when you can believe in facts. Philosophy lead me here, not religion.

Books are tools, never rely on your tools as your source. Be the source, and use the tools.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

Artimas wrote:I would say it would really depend on how it's used, and who is using them. Say for example, a religious fanatic of this time and era, who has a closed mind, no critical thinking or original thought, how can they possibly fathom to philosophize about deep correlations, truths, and proofs? Critical thinking and original thought are a must for philosophy, unless you're just planning on going off books/other sources for all of your arguments, which means they aren't truly your arguments.

Philosophers make the books, not books make the philosophers.

So that kind of rules "religion" right out of the picture, since religions most all derive from 'books' as sources. New age religions are simple ploys to gain credibility and 'money'. Hence Scientology. Not trying to **** on belief, but... why believe in belief, when you can believe in facts. Philosophy lead me here, not religion.

Books are tools, never rely on your tools as your source. Be the source, and use the tools.

To paraphrase what you said, "Religion make the books, not books the religions." For "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)

Artimas wrote:I would say it would really depend on how it's used, and who is using them. Say for example, a religious fanatic of this time and era, who has a closed mind, no critical thinking or original thought, how can they possibly fathom to philosophize about deep correlations, truths, and proofs? Critical thinking and original thought are a must for philosophy, unless you're just planning on going off books/other sources for all of your arguments, which means they aren't truly your arguments.

Philosophers make the books, not books make the philosophers.

So that kind of rules "religion" right out of the picture, since religions most all derive from 'books' as sources. New age religions are simple ploys to gain credibility and 'money'. Hence Scientology. Not trying to **** on belief, but... why believe in belief, when you can believe in facts. Philosophy lead me here, not religion.

Books are tools, never rely on your tools as your source. Be the source, and use the tools.

To paraphrase what you said, "Religion make the books, not books the religions." For "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)

'Tis a shame that much of what passes for religion isn't.

Touche sir, touche. You're correct, religious folk can make the books as well, as philosophers make the books.

But most philosophers do not rely completely off of books, as do majority/masses, rely off of books completely as viable sources. Regardless of their ages as well.

"My ancestors are smiling on me, Imperials. Can you say the same?"

"Science Fiction today ~ Science Fact tomorrow"

Change is inevitable, it can only be delayed or sped up. Choose wisely.

To paraphrase what you said, "Religion make the books, not books the religions." For "the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2 Corinthians 3:6)

'Tis a shame that much of what passes for religion isn't.

Touche sir, touche. You're correct, religious folk can make the books as well, as philosophers make the books.

But most philosophers do not rely completely off of books, as do majority/masses, rely off of books completely as viable sources. Regardless of their ages as well.

Albert Einstein was right when he said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

I'm a realist in the sense that I believe non-observable phenomena actually exist, but an anti-realist in the sense that a theory about such phenomena should never be regarded as the Truth. I am a rather unorthodox Trinitarian Theist not because I am uncritically accepting of pre-established ideas, but rather because it's the only way I have of making sense of things. Like St. Anselm of Canterbury, “I do not seek to understand in order to believe, I believe so that I may understand, I know too that unless I believe, I cannot understand.” Trinitarianism is a tool that may in the future prove to be inadequate.

Granted, mine is a subjective understanding and probably not suited for anyone else, but I do not see why that should be a problem so long as there is no conflict with empirical data.